Honest Mistakes 2025-26: Week 36

After which the phrase "I'm not making excuses, but..." is bludgeoned to death.

A derby largely devoid of major refereeing incident was settled on the field, and please check out the latest Huddle Breakdown podcast for thoughts on that.

Still, there were some morsels for the Yorkshire Whistler to chomp on, and my thanks to him for turning this round so quickly in what will be a very busy week.

10/05/26 Celtic vs The Rangers

Incident 1

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 23^rd

Score At Time: 0-1

Incident: Yang scores for Celtic

Outcome: Goal to Celtic

Evidence:

At 1:30

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Yang scores for Celtic

IOD: Goal to Celtic

Yang gets on the end of a cross about 8 yards out and finds the bottom corner. Rangers appeal for an offside decision as another Celtic player is stood in an offside decision in the proximity of the Rangers keeper.

The question becomes - did the Celtic player prevent his opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the keepers line of vision?

In my opinion the Rangers keeper can see the ball, the Celtic player makes no obvious movement towards the ball or his opponent as Yang strikes the ball and so this correctly not penalised as an offside offence.

Verdict: CORRECT decision.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 2

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 39^th

Score At Time: 1-1

Incident: Johnston challenges Moore

Outcome: Foul to TRFC and YC to Johnston

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Johnston challenges Moore

IOD: Foul to Rangers and Johnston cautioned

Johnston appears to win the ball cleanly in a slide challenge and his follow through sees him lift his foot slightly and there is minimal contact on the Rangers player. The referee feels this upwards movement of the leading foot is of sufficient force to be considered a reckless challenge.

I do not agree with this assessment, I believe the Rangers player over exaggerates the level of contact, which possibly sways the refs interpretation on field - but for me this is nothing more than a robust but fair tackle and the players natural momentum is not reckless.

Verdict: INCORRECT decision - no foul committed the expected outcome.

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Incident 3

Referee: Nick Walsh

Game Minute: 87^th

Score At Time: 3-1

Incident: Barron and Engels challenge for a high ball

Outcome: No decision

Evidence: Provided

Yorkshire Whistler Verdict:

Barron and Engels challenge for high ball

IOD: No decision

As both players jump to head the ball as it falls from the sky, it appears that Engels head glances against the right elbow of Barron and he drops to the floor holding his head. Upon replay it appears that this contact is purely accidental, Barron doesn’t look at Engels as the ball drops and his elbow is not swung out, in an inappropriate or reckless manner. It is just part of his natural jumping movement and both players are entitled to jump to head the ball in the way they did.

Verdict: CORRECT decision to allow play to continue .

Expected Points Outcome: No impact

Summary

My thanks, as always, to the Yorkshire Whistler.

Credit due to Nick Walsh and John Beaton on VAR duties for getting the big calls correct. The reaction from sections of the media and the entirety of The Rangers social media is one for the psychologists and sociologists.

As regards where we stand, it is largely redundant now in terms of the Glasgow clubs as The Rangers are marooned (geddit?) in third place.

Overall, The Rangers have been hampered by incorrect calls to the tune of -1.73 expected points, and Celtic -1.32 xPts, a difference of 0.41 xPts.

After 36 matches, Celtic leads by seven points.